13 0

Have we been to the moon?...Cant even get 200,000 miles on the average car!!

Meekmill 5 Nov 19

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


You're buying the wrong car.


About two thirds of the world's population scoffs at the notion of man having been to the moon, including a number of Americans and other so called advanced nations. I am looking forward to China putting humans there shortly after 2020 off their timeline holds because more if the world will believe man has gone there.


WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON? WOW! THAT'S AWESOME! I hope they took pictures.


Not to denegrate you personally, but it is both depressing and infuriating that the 3 generations since the 1969 event people are so jaded and cynical as to discount what is well documented. We, the space race generation watched with avid wonder and awe as we progressed toward that event. We were so proud of our accomplishments and success. It is so sad to watch youth (and you are young by your picture) of today question without doing the background research.

If you want to see a popular debunking, but a thorough account, watch the MtyhBusters NASA special. Its not data heavy, but debunks conspiracies.

There was also a great many generations who heard a story of jesus. And believed it at face value for millenia... now as science and truth comes forth, we realize things we hadn't before. A good deceiver will show you things at a certain angle, convince you a brick is flat by only showing you one side. It is when change the angle in which you view it, that is isnt flat, but a three dimensional object

@SoullessHeathen Theres a world of difference between faith and fact based evidence. I teach physics, don't try to snowball me with frame of reference arguments. False comparison.

@Meekmill understood and respect your honesty. But it is real and did happpen. Watch the mythbusters, its a painless way to address the controversies.

@t1nick then you also understand that the laws of physics are fluid. Concrete today, but as technology advances, our exploration and discovery become more and more advanced with it. When (because I don't care for ifs) a new discovery changes a law of physics, then that will be the new and accepted understanding. The same applies to everything.

@SoullessHeathen Thats part of the definition of the scientific process and paradigm. Scientific knowledge is not fluid, but dynamic. Fluid suggests going back and forth. Dynamic means changeable.


Yes, it's one of the most well documented events in history. It couldn't be faked with today's technology, let alone that of the 1960s. If there had been a hoax, the Soviets would have exposed it at the time.

Definitely. There was a world-wide (cuz our planet spins) array of communication antenna aimed at those missions and their transmissions..


Going down to the Titanic was far more difficult.

or the Andrea Doria. Robert Kurson's Shadow Divers is a great read about the difficulties of deep sea diving even to just 160 feet (50 m) depth.


satellites and space vehicles of any kind are built to withstand immense temperatures, radiation and frequent beating from space debris. That’s why they cost billions of dollars. If Porsche built a car like that it would cost millions. It’s not worth it for the small distances we travel over the years.
The US is not the only country to have been to the moon either. There’s plenty of evidence to support that position. Critics always ask, why don’t we go back? These trips have to be cost effective. There’s nothing else to learn from the moon that our better instrumentation on earth can’t tell us.

@Meekmill We went to the South Pole in 1911, didn't return until 1957. The same applies to the Moon, not at all surprising we haven't returned yet. We will when the technology makes it safe, and not an insanely risky publicity stunt like the first Moon landings, or visit to the South Pole.


They coasted the whole way...

Waited until the moon was on the other side and then it's down hill all the way.


you get about as much use as they want you to get out of it. no profit to be made by making cars that last too long.


The Saturn V, the LM, the CSM were NOT the equivalent of your "average car".
They were designed and engineered to solve a very specific task which they did very well. They (and the Apollo astronauts) made it to the moon and back.

The lunar reflectors on the surface are the simplest bit of evidence that we have been there. It is possible to bounce a laser beam from Earth off of the man-made reflectors installed on the surface.

@Meekmill I am as certain as the evidence allows. You are right there is evidence, plenty of it in fact, to support the landings. There is no solid evidence against them. Most items circulated around are either misunderstandings or outright forgeries.

@Meekmill A valid point. Humans are an amazing species and have always accomplished extraordinary things throughout history. I believe in the ingenuity and ability of humans throughout history. Neolithic stone structures, pyramids (both in egypt and the middle east), the city-states of antiquity. I do believe that industrious humans constructed all of them. Humans have and will continue to do amazing extraordinary things.


Yes, we have been to the moon.

Wag The Dog was a funny, FICTIONAL movie.


I want to believe, and there is solid evidence both for, and against the notion that we went. I too am conflicted on this subject.

@StarvingArtist Technologically, in the 1960's, we were infantile. Plus, there is the radiation belt we would have to get through, which, without some kind of shielding, the astronauts would certainly have been too sick to accomplish such a task. It is estimated that to defend against the radiation belt (of which the name eludes me presently), we would need three-quarter inch thick lead walls on the crew capsule, to which there was none. The Cold War was nothing but a pissing match between two nations, and a space race was the game we both whipped our Willie's out to compete with. Lie to gain the upper hand, absolutely plausible. The U.S. was not about to let the "commies" take that victory. Plus, watch the first press conference from the 4 men aboard the ship. Why is no one smiling, why do they look as if they have a guilty conscience? Just watch the video. It is easily searchable on YouTube or other video hosting services. If I had just accomplished such a feat, I would be overjoyed. Hell, even nascar racers are excited about going in circles the fastest. Going to the moon and no joy or happiness? Body language is a mother fucker.

@StarvingArtist also, flat earth isnt even up for debate, nor is it relevant to this topic.

@maturin1919 It’s good I wasn’t there, I’d still be in jail, or prison ~

@StarvingArtist fact check using NASA I assume you are implying?

@Bendog that technology was impressive for it's time, but I must remind you, although development of the blackbird began in the late fifties, it did not reach production until the early 70s. Technology was not yet available to produce the components needed for the SR-71 to be effective.

@Bendog I am 30, and have done 2 tours in Afghanistan. I was a petty officer 1st class construction mechanic with the United States Navy Seabees. I know much about military tech. And you just confirmed what I said about seeing 71s in 1975, as I had stated they didnt reach production until the early 70s. And being within 25 feet of a Blackbird hardly makes you a subject matter expert on them, no offense. I've been in Blackhawks, chinooks, c130s, c130 gunships, c17s, and have seen men and women control drones and using then effectively. I have also seen the technology on ships, which some is amazing, while others are rudimentary. Dont act as if you are the only one here with military knowledge. I was the same age while serving that you were. The navy has more aircraft than the air force, and I've traveled far and wide on them. But again, thank you for proving my point about when the sr71 came into use.


@Gurahl I do believe the international space station exists, as I have seen it fly by quickly in the night sky, and have also, with a directional antenna and a ham radio, made contact with it in 2011, during an open ham event which the space station was taking part in.

@Gurahl the ISS is 100 miles from the van Allen belt, as NASA claims

@Gurahl also, if you are to link a plethora of YouTube videos, try to keep them sourced from people in the field of science, or academia, as I have done, not a bag designer branching out in desperation for youtube views. Lol

@Gurahl To ask someone involved in the Apollo missions if the (for sake of argument) mission assigned to lie and deceive the public about the moon landings is true, would be like asking Nixon about Watergate before the tapes surfaced. You would get an answer that they rehearsed, and is in keeping with the story they intend you to believe. Now, as far as those who watched the rockets take off, and as awe-inspiring as it may have been, you have to put emotion aside and realize that people on the ground could not track, with the naked, the destination of the rocket once in orbit. That's like saying you watched a plane takeoff in 1969 from LAX bound for DC, and you know for certain that it made it to DC without rerouting, emergency landing, etc., maybe a bad analogy, but you see where I'm going with it. Seperate emotion of events, and focus on the event itself, or the non-event.

@Gurahl JWs calling evolution a "theory" is funny to me, because it validates evolution as true. They fail to understand that, by definition, a theory is something that can be tested, and proven, or replicated. What they should be yelling, for their own sake of argument, is that evolution is a hypothesis, that would make more sense, but science has proven evolution as valid.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:226802
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.